ModSquad Update - July 20 to July 26, 2003

That he has, and no offense to anyone, but I think you're wasting your time fussing about it.

That being said--I disagree with Josh. I think the site should be more friendly towards homosexuality and less conservative in general.

However, it isn't my site. I can make my voice heard--as I did when I signed KaineDamo's petition to allow slash fanfic--but screaming about it doesn't help, because Josh owns the site and Josh and his staff make the rules. If I'm not happy here, I can leave. I have chosen not to because, while I disagree with that rule and a few others here, I still like this site and enjoy posting here. That being said, I'm not going to sit around and piss off about something I can't do a hell of a lot about, generally making things unpleasant for myself and everyone else (and getting sore fingers in the process).

I have two choices, as do the rest of you: crap or get off the pot. I'm making my choice.

*takes a laxative*

 

crap or get off the pot

LMAO!!!!

 

Let's keep off the personal commentary, please.

 

JediStryker

Um, this is the first time I've posted at length in Comms.

You say I'm "picking an issue, regardless of merit (I find that a little insulting by the way) as if I do this all the time.

The reason I'm so adament about this is because of all the attention on this subject in recent months with the decision in Canada, the subsequent backlash in conservative America, and my latest shift to the political left as of late.




Anata baka?!

 

Um, this is the first time I've posted at length in Comms.

You say I'm "picking an issue, regardless of merit (I find that a little insulting by the way) as if I do this all the time.

I wasn't talking about you specifically, but everyone in Comms who pick up on issues and then beat them to death.

I didn't say that this issue had no merit, I said that many took issues and picked them apart until they lost merit.

The reason I'm so adament about this is because of all the attention on this subject in recent months with the decision in Canada, the subsequent backlash in conservative America, and my latest shift to the political left as of late.

It's great that you feel so strongly about this, and I'm sorry to hear that you've moved to the political left. I was just asking why it was that so many here feel the need to continually thrust their opinions, valid or not, into every thread in Comms again and again even though they know that the decisions have already been made.

It seems like harrassment to me. Since the staff here apparently disagrees, I have no room to say anything. I was merely asking a question. I didn't mean to make it personal.

 

It's great that you feel so strongly about this, and I'm sorry to hear that you've moved to the political left.

I find that extremely offensive. Any mod going to step in, or will I be left hanging again?

I was just asking why it was that so many here feel the need to continually thrust their opinions, valid or not, into every thread in Comms again and again even though they know that the decisions have already been made.

Because that's how change happens. Because that's the point of this forum, to get people's opinions on important matters concerning the JC.




Anata baka?!

 

I find that extremely offensive. Any mod going to step in, or will I be left hanging again?

It wasn't said in a baiting fashion, and it's fine.

 

It wasn't said in a baiting fashion, and it's fine.



KW

I'm sorry to hear you're still on the right.




Anata baka?!

 

JediStryker: It's amazing how many right-wingers are sorry to hear about us left-wingers being on the left, when we don't give a rat's ass if you're on the right or not, as long as you're not trying to take us under your right wings.

Anyway...

On the topic--as I said before, you're wasting your breaths. Sign KD's petition or write to Josh yourself, but I don't think hashing it out on the Mod Squad update is going to change a thing.

 

Because that's how change happens. Because that's the point of this forum, to get people's opinions on important matters concerning the JC.

Alright...let me try and say what I mean without shoving my boot in my mouth.

This topic has been discussed to death before, am I correct? There is apparently a petition going around, and a valid method of contacting the only person who can make a change to this policy, right? So why bother posting in these threads in this manner when you know that it will in fact not cause a change in policy?

This forum is for the JC, not TF.N, if I understand correctly. This policy is a site policy. There's nothing the mods can do to change this policy. So why harrass them when they've already given you an answer? That is all I'm trying to understand.

 

What JediStryker said.

 

So why bother posting in these threads in this manner when you know that it will in fact not cause a change in policy?

Because I believe that the rule can be changed if enough people speak out on it.




Anata baka?!

 

Well hey, bitching about it might not change anything, but it can't hurt.

 

Yes, it can. It can make people tune causes and people out after awhile, and generally oversaturate and overplay things that were taken seriously in the past.

 

It can make people tune causes and people out after awhile

? I dont understand?

 

I didn't word that well. I meant that if you hear the same thing over and over again, many people stop taking it seriously, or stop paying attention at all.

 

That's why I plan to be strategic about it, rather than spamming it.

 

yes, i agree, KW, over doing something can appear to turn it into a joke or farce and then fail to be taken seriously and the point is lost.

 

I think the problem is that, while J*sh may have said that this is the rule and it's not going to change, and that is fine and dandy and whatever, his reasoning and justification for this stance is completely deficient. That's the bigger problem, I think. Making the rule to ward off upset mothers is laughable, as is any justification regarding a personal belief. And while, yes, most of those who have adamantly voiced their complaints over the issue will most probably still post here, they'll do so with a lowered sense of respect for the owner, and the site. I think most of those who complain about this ageing policy do so because they don't like to see TFN, an innovative and progressive Star Wars site that has no real equal in terms of size and content, be so mired in administrative stances of the past, where equality and ethics are no where to be found. It won't make current members leave, no, but it damages the reputation of, not only the leadership base, but the site overall. At least in my eyes, other members eyes and no doubt members of the future's eyes. And, with time, as tolerance continues to increase in society, TFN risks only to fall even further behind. Oh well.

I guess that's all I'll say on the issue now, unless something else new comes up later down the track.

 

Well said, epic.




Kaze wa mirai ni fuku

 

Making the rule ... is laughable, as is any justification regarding a personal belief.

How is that any different than your personal belief that the rule should be changed?

 

A rule based on a personal belief is far from laughable. I would think, in this day and age, that more people would be praising him for sticking to his guns more than anything.

Let me explain.

In this world of exceptions and non-absolutes, it's very difficult to hold to your convictions anymore. When enough people start to shove, most people are willing to give, even if just a little. These people don't really change, they just violate themselves in order to save them stress.

If this rule really is the result of Josh's moral convictions, then there's nothing you can do about it. He has decided to uphold his ideals on his site, even if it does make the site seem prejudicial. I think it's quite noble of him to do so, and there are a lot more people out there who would support his decision than you think.

Look at it this way. Say you had a site that did support homosexuality, and allowed gay content on the site. Suddenly, some of your members declare that they want the site to be 'straight-only'. It seems to you that a majority of them want this change. Would you change the policy to please your members? Or would you stick to your guns and keep the policy as-is, even if it does anger and alienate many of your members?

That is the situation that he is in now. It's not as simple as changing an archaic rule; you're asking him to change his moral convictions, or at the very least to violate them. As long as he's the CEO of this site, then he's the one who has the responsibility of running it as he sees fit.

Of course you're free to petition him and PM him and what-have-you. But think about what it is you're asking. And remember that this is no small issue, either for yourself or him.

 

How is that any different than your personal belief that the rule should be changed?

My personal belief doesn't discriminate against those whose lifestyle choice may be different to mine. Josh's personal belief, which I'm referring to in the above post, and which is based on religious convictions, does. I'm not criticising his freedom to believe, but the consequences of that belief in what are changing times.

And Stryker, sticking to your guns can be said to be noble, sure, but it may be the exact opposite, depending on the situation. To offer an extreme example, are the KKK noble for sticking to their own convictions concerning black people? Perhaps they are, but it still doesn't make their stance correct.

 

And Stryker, sticking to your guns can be said to be noble, sure, but it may be the exact opposite, depending on the situation. To offer an extreme example, are the KKK noble for sticking to their own convictions concerning black people? Perhaps they are, but it still doesn't make their stance correct.

There's a difference between not liking someone because of their race, and not liking an act that is considered immoral by your religion. The KKK have made up their own morals based on their prejudices; a Christian who believes that acting in a homosexual fashion is a sin is acting on the principles set forth by the Bible.

I am a Christian, and I believe that homosexual acts are a sin. I don't hold anything against gays, and I agree that legally they have the right to do whatever they want to. Does that mean that I have to let people post homosexual content on my own website? Of course not. Should I be forced by others to do so? Of course not.

Going back to your example, if a KKK member ran a popular SW website and said that no stories or posts could contain colored people, should you harass that person into letting you do so? Or should you go to another site that does allow it? Is it even worth fighting?